But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution? The surprising answer is Darwin's macroevolution theory is not a legitimate science. The National Academy of Sciences clearly defined science in its 1998 guidebook for science teachers. The definition begins with [stating that] science is a particular way of knowing about the world, and ends with, "Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science." In other words, a legitimate scientific theory (a hypothesis or idea) must be observable in real time and must be testable, yielding reproducible results. That is the core of the scientific method that has brought man out of the Dark Ages.

Because confirmable observations and generating experimental data are impossible for unique events like life's origin and macroevolution theory, world-famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr prompts evolutionists to construct historical narratives to try to explain evolutionary events or processes. In other words, stories are all evolutionists can muster to support macroevolution theory. If macroevolution theory, which must rest on faith in a story and is considered to be scientific, why not the creation story. With that in mind, it is no wonder the molecules-to-man debate has persisted for 150 years...

"I dont get what the big push is about evolution." 2 posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 2:00:00 AM by utherdoul

It's delayed adolescent sexual anxiety and maladjustment to conventional morality. The percentage of people who get most hysterical about pushing the atheistic version of Darwinist materialism is about the same as that of those with obsessive-compulsive disorder and those suffering from masurbation anxiety. The facts about this have been suppressed so as not to embarrass left-brained dorks at prestige universities who go in for compulsive obsessions in hard sciences. But it is sexual and masturbation anxiety which drives the emotional hysteria behind this movement to make kids spend hours upon hours studying graphs of imaginary prehistoric hominids and gargantuan ape men. Although it's unclear why this in particular relieves the anxiety.

It would require more research into what brought on the anxiety and when the obsessions, cathexis, and fixation on pictures of large ape men set in.

The article says nothing of the sort. It's saying that the general/macro theory of evolution is unobservable and unrepeatable, and therefore does not fall under the definition of empirical science. As such, the macro theory of evolution is story telling based on historical inferences that are based on materialistic ASSUMPTIONS.

And how about astronomy? Objectively, it consists in the recording and interpretation of electromagnetic radiation impinging on the earth. How is it that these interpretations gain the status of FACT ?

The repeatable measurements are scientific, but the interpretations of those measurements as they relate to the unobservable, unrepeatable past are nothing more than inferences, or educated guesses if you will.

Much of geology couldnt be called science, because most of the processes are so slow they cant be directly observed but only inferred from the geological record.

But those same geological processes can be observed in artificial, experimental conditions, in which they have been greatly speeded up. Geology is a science because it receives confirmation from physics and chemistry.

The same cannot be said for Darwinian evolution. It isn’t just that we don’t observe it in nature; we don’t observe it even under artificial, experimental conditions. Fruit flies have been zapped with radiation for fifty years; enough radiation to produce horrible mutants with extra feet growing out of their heads and extra wings on their feet...BUT NO NEW SPECIES. Still the same old fruit flies.

I think we might say this:

In Darwin’s day, evolution was (to quote Karl Popper) a “metaphysical research programme”; i.e., a way of looking at the world that could guide the sort of research one did, and the sort of questions one asked.

Since the age of biochemistry and molecular biology, however, Darwinian evolution can be considered, and should be considered, A FAILED SCIENCE, not a “non-science.” It is perfectly legitimate to ask “Can random mutation plus natural selection either cause life to come into existence from non-living matter; and can it cause one species to change into another?”

It’s pretty clear from biochemistry and molecular biology that the answer is no.

This doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as “change over time”; everyone knows (and always knew) that change over time existed. It means that CHANCE cannot explain such change.

Sadistic personalities tend to go in for the “survival of the fittest” narrative with the most enthusiasm. It should prove interesting when Sharia comes to Europe and Londonistan how literally they are enthused by it.

The problem comes in when the theorist doesn't know the difference between empirical science and metaphysical cosmology. Or between a fact and a theory. Between reality and paradigmatic symbols or models.

Translation: crazy Crevos find something they don’t want to believe, come up with cockamamie theories that only other dumb crevos believe. Thereby sentencing anyone educated by or around crevos to further ignorance and making crevo areas even greater economic backwaters.

The article says nothing of the sort. It's saying that the general/macro theory of evolution is unobservable and unrepeatable, and therefore does not fall under the definition of empirical science. As such, the macro theory of evolution is story telling based on historical inferences that are based on materialistic ASSUMPTIONS.

Yawn... much of physics is "non repeatable"(e.g., humans have never gone at the speed of light) however much of this "non repeatable" stuff is readable observable in other phenomena. Just as "macro" evolution is observable in fossils and DNA patterns.

This particular crevo lie has been refuted many times. Then again you don't even understand your own talking points, how can you be expected to understand their rebuttals?

The same cannot be said for Darwinian evolution. It isnt just that we dont observe it in nature; we dont observe it even under artificial, experimental conditions. Fruit flies have been zapped with radiation for fifty years; enough radiation to produce horrible mutants with extra feet growing out of their heads and extra wings on their feet...BUT NO NEW SPECIES. Still the same old fruit flies.

The repeatable measurements are scientific, but the interpretations of those measurements as they relate to the unobservable, unrepeatable past are nothing more than inferences, or educated guesses if you will.

All science is *inductive reasoning*(i.e. inference to save dumb crevos the chance to misinterpret what I'm talking about) . Is there a single Crevo that's gone to a real college that actually teaches logic and rhetoric?

Homosexuality is a religion. It is a fetish... an idolatry of perversion. Excuse me if I refuse to bend my knee in acquiescence.

The same can be said for the temple of evolutionism.

The notion that children need to be indoctrinated and badgered into thinking a certain way is the insecurity of adults, a universal dissatisfaction with mortality reaching out for an eternal ideal. Whether this is done by atheists or by the religious, it is exactly the same ecclesiasticism.

Man did not come from apes... Man supposedly came from a common ancestor - the “missing link” Louis Leaky searched Oldavai Gorge 30 years in vain for.

But, the singularity of all life is the DNA molecule. All living things have it. Like the singularity of the “big bang” theory, evolutionists make the inadvertent admission life is some sort of immaculate conception...

Evolution, the theory, is called more properly “The Origin of Species.” That was Darwin’s title.

Evolution requires change over a period of time. Time then, by deductive reasoning must have a beginning.

The flaw in evolutionists’ logic is that life did not come from the earth, because the earth came from somewhere else as well. Life also came from somewhere else...

Boy, you get really upset when creationists point out that Darwood's fanciful creation myth is nothing more than materialist storytelling about the unobservable, unrepeatable past. Darwood was not a scientist, nor did he practice the scientific method. His only earned degree was in religion. All he had to go on was a few minor variations between finches, and from that this med-school dropout, turned reverend, turned amateur naturalist, presumed to reinterpret the entire history of biology based on almost ZERO data. And you guys fell for it...LOL! Even his main claim to fame--natural selection--was discovered by a creationist some 25 years before the pubication of Origins. But only Darwood could take this obvious force for biological conservation and turn it into a nature-god capable of fashioning super-sophisticated biological organisms. But I'm sure none of these absurdities make a dent in your devotion to the bearded Buddha of religious naturalism, as it is quite clear that you have made all the necessary sacrifices to become a life-long Temple of Darwin fanatic.

As Ernst Mayr points out, Darwood could not experiment in the past, so he invented just-so “historical narratives” for the atheists and materialists in need of intellectual fulfillment of today...and you guys fell for it...LOL!:

“The most widely used method in the physical sciences is the experiment. However, in his evolutionary studies Darwin had to cope with a factor that is irrelevant in most of the physical sciences except in geology and cosmology, the time factor. One cannot experiment with biological happenings in the past. Phenomena like the extinction of the dinosaurs and all other evolutionary events are inaccessible to the experimental method and require an entirely different methodology, that of
the so-called historical narratives. In this method one develops an imaginary scenario of past happenings on the basis of their consequences. One then makes all sorts of predictions from this scenario and determines whether or not they have come true.”

Unfortunately for the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism, Darwood’s “historical” narratives are being falsified right and left, thus creating an ever increasing number leaks to develop in the hull of the HMS Beagle. Indeed, it has started to sink so fast, that it has the Evos panicked to the point of publishing articles in the New York Times (of all places!) to the effect that Darwin must die so that evolution might live. Don’t you get it, Ketsu, just about everybody who is anybody knows that the HMS Beagle is going down—except you. Or perhaps you’re just doing the honorable thing by going down with the ship. LOL

Because God designed us that way. In addition to stamping each and every one of us as unique, the last I checked humans grip a far greater variety of objects (large and small, coarse and smooth) than do apes.

If they didn't, television writers would need another way to have their protagonists track down criminals. Granted, this is a anthropic argument, but if it's good enough for Steven Weinberg, it's good enough for me! (well, not really - actually anthropic arguments are the worst kind of pseudo-science)

Boy, you get really upset when creationists point out that Darwood's fanciful creation myth blah blah blah.

Nah, he's not upset. Upset is when you post multiple articles per day repeating long-disproven or simply irrelevant talking points, drawn from small pool of like-minded web sites and occasional articles from the opinion pages of small newspapers, even though one's opponents draw freely from a century of technical and lay scientific literature and happily slap down these talking points as a way to pass time during commercial breaks. That's upset. That's a level of upset that, if directed into the electrical grid, could power a small city. It's too bad there's only one of you, GunGodsGuts. A few hundred more and we could solve the country's energy problems.

Homosexuality is a religion. It is a fetish... an idolatry of perversion. Excuse me if I refuse to bend my knee in acquiescence.

The same can be said for the temple of evolutionism.

The notion that children need to be indoctrinated and badgered into thinking a certain way is the insecurity of adults, a universal dissatisfaction with mortality reaching out for an eternal ideal. Whether this is done by atheists or by the religious, it is exactly the same ecclesiasticism.

Man did not come from apes... Man supposedly came from a common ancestor - the missing link Louis Leaky searched Oldavai Gorge 30 years in vain for.

But, the singularity of all life is the DNA molecule. All living things have it. Like the singularity of the big bang theory, evolutionists make the inadvertent admission life is some sort of immaculate conception...

Evolution, the theory, is called more properly The Origin of Species. That was Darwins title.

Evolution requires change over a period of time. Time then, by deductive reasoning must have a beginning.

The flaw in evolutionists logic is that life did not come from the earth, because the earth came from somewhere else as well. Life also came from somewhere else...

Uuuum... I know farmers with gay sheep and a friend has gay dogs. Homosexuality is not a religion, although it may be a mental illness.

Evolution is a theory, right up there with relativity and other physical theories. It *is* not indoctrination, although--because it conflicts with the nuttiness of crevos-- it is often projected as such.

As for your "immaculate conception" hypothesis, google "RNA world" and get back to me.

Religious fanatic would be far too much of a generalization to define you. You belong to small cult which not only believes that the bible is the word of God but that it is also the literal word of God. Maybe "small time cultist" would be a better fit.

38
posted on 02/23/2009 3:04:31 AM PST
by Jeff Gordon
("An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last." Churchill)

Boy, you get really upset when creationists point out that Darwood's fanciful creation myth is nothing more than materialist storytelling about the unobservable, unrepeatable past. Darwood was not a scientist, nor did he practice the scientific method. His only earned degree was in religion. All he had to go on was a few minor variations between finches, and from that this med-school dropout, turned reverend, turned amateur naturalist, presumed to reinterpret the entire history of biology based on almost ZERO data. And you guys fell for it...LOL! Even his main claim to fame--natural selection--was discovered by a creationist some 25 years before the pubication of Origins. But only Darwood could take this obvious force for biological conservation and turn it into a nature-god capable of fashioning super-sophisticated biological organisms. But I'm sure none of these absurdities make a dent in your devotion to the bearded Buddha of religious naturalism, as it is quite clear that you have made all the necessary sacrifices to become a life-long Temple of Darwin fanatic.

Yawn... you certainly haven't had any logic or rhetoric education that's for sure. "Argumentum ad hominem" would be a good place for you to start.

As Ernst Mayr points out, Darwood could not experiment in the past, so he invented just-so historical narratives for the atheists and materialists in need of intellectual fulfillment of today...and you guys fell for it...LOL!:

The most widely used method in the physical sciences is the experiment. However, in his evolutionary studies Darwin had to cope with a factor that is irrelevant in most of the physical sciences except in geology and cosmology, the time factor. One cannot experiment with biological happenings in the past. Phenomena like the extinction of the dinosaurs and all other evolutionary events are inaccessible to the experimental method and require an entirely different methodology, that of the so-called historical narratives. In this method one develops an imaginary scenario of past happenings on the basis of their consequences. One then makes all sorts of predictions from this scenario and determines whether or not they have come true.

Unfortunately for the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism, Darwoods historical narratives are being falsified right and left, thus creating an ever increasing number leaks to develop in the hull of the HMS Beagle. Indeed, it has started to sink so fast, that it has the Evos panicked to the point of publishing articles in the New York Times (of all places!) to the effect that Darwin must die so that evolution might live. Dont you get it, Ketsu, just about everybody who is anybody knows that the HMS Beagle is going downexcept you. Or perhaps youre just doing the honorable thing by going down with the ship. LOL.

As usual you don't understand how science works. The problem is that you and the rest of the Crevo dimwits have taken "naturalistic materalism" and tried to use it as a lense to interpret Christianity. Hence all the bilge about dinosaurs being on the ark.

That's also why you mindlessly project your own hero worship onto others. Hate to burst your bubble but science doesn't work that way.

Nah, he's not upset. Upset is when you post multiple articles per day repeating long-disproven or simply irrelevant talking points, drawn from small pool of like-minded web sites and occasional articles from the opinion pages of small newspapers, even though one's opponents draw freely from a century of technical and lay scientific literature and happily slap down these talking points as a way to pass time during commercial breaks. That's upset. That's a level of upset that, if directed into the electrical grid, could power a small city. It's too bad there's only one of you, GunGodsGuts. A few hundred more and we could solve the country's energy problems.

If you keep this up, you might make him mad enough to call you a homosexual.

PS Did you see what the Evos gave Darwood for his birthday? It was published in one of those BIG newspapers that sophisticated city-folk read. Of course, they didn’t dare mention that creationists have been predicting this inevitable falsification ever since the days Darwood first published his fanciful creation myth:

Yes, of course. Creationists must be tragically ignorant, simply uneducated, or just plain stupid if we dont ascribe to your materialistic story of origins.

Evolutionists have nothing if they dont have condescending invective.

Just like your pet theory, your narrative against your intellectual opponents has no basis in fact.

Many Creationists are college educated. Many Creationists hold advanced degrees. Many Creationists are successful in business, science, and engineering.

They are not the buck-toothed, google-eyed, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, drooling caricature you so much like to convey.

Science is inherently materialistic. That's why Crevos are so funny(and laughably ignorant) they keep trying to bang a big square peg(monotheism) into a little round hole(natural science or "materialism" as you like to call it).

It's inherently paradoxical for a true scientist to be a creationist. Science *necessitates* materialism. Anybody that has actually studied reasoning should know that.

So *yes* Crevos are "tragically ignorant, simply uneducated or just plain stupid" as you so aptly put it.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.